The Brookhaven leader., 1887-09-29
AN cPEN LETTER
Against Prohibition from Mr.. Da-
Wis to Bishop Galloway.
The Sage of Beauvolr Badly Used
Uplna Short Interview, With
More to Follow.

DEAUNOlk, MISS, l'tl'l. J, iDN's
Rt. Rev. Charles Il. Galloway, Bishop OF
the Methodist Church South.
DEAR SIR-On seeing your address
delivered at Brookhaven, Miss, on the
10Th ult., rs published in the Times
Democrat of New Orleans on the 18th
wrote to you calling your attention tc
passages cited from your address, and
sent YOU a printed copy ofmy letter to
Gov. Lubbock, of the 10Th of July
last. entertained the reasonable sup.
position that you had somehow been
mislcd as to the purport OF that letter
and that upon an examination OF that
text YOU would acknowledge the injus-
tice YOU had done me, or if this eXpcc-
tation was not well founded, that you
would mark the passage on which yonr
structures were founded and return the
letter to me, aid this requested you
to do.
You replied to my letter on the 16,
but DID not meet the issue | presented,
did not return the printed copy of the
letter, or specify the passages of it
which caused your attack. In your
letter. both kind and courteous, YOU
eferred to what Judge Reagan had
written and what the saloon men OF
Texas had said. replied on tbs 10Th
of August, that | was not responsible
tor what Judge Reagan had written
or what the saloon men had said, and
called your attention to the failure to
return the printed copy Of my letter
as requested and i'll conclusion | wrote
that my first letter was from "a desire
to avoid public discussion with YOU;
that desire remains. 1t depends upon
YOU whether | shall be driven to the
alternative OF presenting my case be
fore the public, that being the tribunal
before which you had arraigned me.
To this you replied sending back the
printed copy as it had been sent to
YOU, with an apology for having acct
IDENTITY omitted to enclose it in your
previous letter This forces upon me the
alternative of replying to your address
by an open letter.
You have expressed sorrow because
| answered the inquiry of a friend for
my opinion on Il political question and
employ many kind and complimentary
expressions in regard to me but III
view Of your persistence i'll unjustitied
asSailment your compliments seem like
the garlands with which in the olden
time a Sacriticial official offering was
decorated.
Now is my time to turn to grieve-
not for YOU personally-but that a
dignity Of the Methodist Church,
South, shotld have left the pulpit and
the Bible to mount the political rostrum
and plead the higher law Of prohib-
itioniSm- the substitution of force for
free will, moral responsibility the OBJ
legation to do unto others as We would
be done by, and the brotherly love
taught by meek and lowiy Jesus, whom
We adore.
In this see the forbidden union OF
church and state; my grief is real and
relates to both.
Disfranchised though be, the love
Of my life for the constitution and lib
critics it was formed to secure remains
as ardent in age as it was in youth.
The "Methodist Church South has
been to me the object of admiration
and grateful affection because of its IL
deity to principle despite the pressure
Of wealth and power by the zeal Of It's
undergrad ministers who have gone a
long hy-ways to penetrate untrcquen-
ted religions and there preach the COS
pei to the poor Often has my mem
orv recalled the prophetic vision Of
Bishop Marvin. Will it be fulfilled
by introducing politics into the organ
ization Of the church he nobly illustra-
ted.
This reply, it may be proper here to
remark, is not made to you in your char
acter Of dignitary of that church, but
in that which for that occasion YOU
have assumed AS a political partisan.
1t is untcnable to deny that the move
ment IN which YOU have engaged is
political, for its aim is to elect repre-
scutatives pledged to enact to govern
the body polite.
1t is true that you designate the
movement "a moral reform, but it
seems like irony thus to term penal
statutes hedged about by extraordinary
measures Of prevention.
There are two noticeable omissions
in your published criticism ofmy letter
to ex-Gov, lubbock, First nomen-
ton Of anything to be found in that let
ter second no statement of the amend
ment pending in Texas on which my
opinion was asked, and therefore which
was the subjects ofmy answer, In my
somebody else had said or done. You
had assailed me for 81 certain letter
which had written. The closing SEN
tence Of your published address was:
"How sad that the last words Of
soldier sage or Christian should be-
come the shibboleth of the saloons"
One who shall attentively read the
letter against which your attack was
directed must readily perceive why
you did not comply with my request
that you would mark the passage on
which your strictnre was founded.
There was no references in my letter
to saloons.